Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Tunisia, riots and fleeing Presidents

2

Posts

  • DarkCrawlerDarkCrawler Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    It's probably too early to say if this will spread to other Mid-East/North Africa countries, right? It seems to me that the position in Tunisia was still pretty shaky compared to giants like Egypt, Syria or Iran. Of the neighbors, Gaddafi is pretty steady and I don't think the populace has same sort of problems as Tunisians. Algeria seems to be on a road to better recovery.

  • BastableBastable Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Social media should have exploded if Al Jaz latest piece is anything to go by. Apparently when Ben ali was trying to placate his people he said the internet censorship his government had been pulling would end. It took a couple of days but it seems Tunisians have full access to the internet now and have flocked to twitter face book ect. http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/01/201111410250537313.html


    Also Clinton's intial reaction is being lambasted: The timing couldn't have been more fortuitous, as Secretary of State Clinton was in the Middle East meeting with Arab political and civil society leaders at the moment events took their fateful turn. Yet when asked directly about the protests the day before Ben Ali fled her answer said volumes about the mentality of the Obama administration and the larger US and European foreign policy establishments to the unfolding situation.

    "We can't take sides."

    A more tone deaf response would have been hard to imagine. This was a moment when the Obama administration could have seized the reins of history and helped usher in a new era in the Arab/Muslim world world


    http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/01/20111167156465567.html

    Philippe about the tactical deployment of german Kradschützen during the battle of Kursk:
    "I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."

  • [Tycho?][Tycho?] Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Bastable wrote: »
    Social media should have exploded if Al Jaz latest piece is anything to go by. Apparently when Ben ali was trying to placate his people he said the internet censorship his government had been pulling would end. It took a couple of days but it seems Tunisians have full access to the internet now and have flocked to twitter face book ect. http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/01/201111410250537313.html


    Also Clinton's intial reaction is being lambasted: The timing couldn't have been more fortuitous, as Secretary of State Clinton was in the Middle East meeting with Arab political and civil society leaders at the moment events took their fateful turn. Yet when asked directly about the protests the day before Ben Ali fled her answer said volumes about the mentality of the Obama administration and the larger US and European foreign policy establishments to the unfolding situation.

    "We can't take sides."

    A more tone deaf response would have been hard to imagine. This was a moment when the Obama administration could have seized the reins of history and helped usher in a new era in the Arab/Muslim world world


    http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/01/20111167156465567.html

    Its pretty impossible for the US, under any administration, to actively support democratic activists in the Middle East. They would not stay contained in one country. And virtually all the dictators are part of the American Raj. Supporting democratic activists is actively undermining US power in the region, which is something it cannot do.

    ragesig.jpg

  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    Bastable wrote: »
    Social media should have exploded if Al Jaz latest piece is anything to go by. Apparently when Ben ali was trying to placate his people he said the internet censorship his government had been pulling would end. It took a couple of days but it seems Tunisians have full access to the internet now and have flocked to twitter face book ect. http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/01/201111410250537313.html


    Also Clinton's intial reaction is being lambasted: The timing couldn't have been more fortuitous, as Secretary of State Clinton was in the Middle East meeting with Arab political and civil society leaders at the moment events took their fateful turn. Yet when asked directly about the protests the day before Ben Ali fled her answer said volumes about the mentality of the Obama administration and the larger US and European foreign policy establishments to the unfolding situation.

    "We can't take sides."

    A more tone deaf response would have been hard to imagine. This was a moment when the Obama administration could have seized the reins of history and helped usher in a new era in the Arab/Muslim world world


    http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/01/20111167156465567.html

    Its pretty impossible for the US, under any administration, to actively support democratic activists in the Middle East. They would not stay contained in one country. And virtually all the dictators are part of the American Raj. Supporting democratic activists is actively undermining US power in the region, which is something it cannot do.

    If you consider doing the right thing for once as impossible, I guess...

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • BastableBastable Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    The Guardian has a report on developing intercine fighting of police and state security elements loyal to Ben Ali and those that are not. Although I think the fighting is more due to the Ben Ali elements being concerned at being arrested as Ali's former police and the interior minsters have found.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/16/tunisia-gun-battle-army-tunis

    I was wrong the radom nature of the violence, driving around in veh and preforming drive bys seem to indicate most of it is driven by inconsolable rage at the general populace expressing happiness that Ben Ali is gone. The only pro Ali elements that are conceivably fighting so as not to be arrested is the members of the presidential guards, in Carthage.

    Seriously Carthage, even with classics studies I never clicked that the Carthage empire was located in present day Tunisia. :D

    Philippe about the tactical deployment of german Kradschützen during the battle of Kursk:
    "I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."

  • dojangodojango Registered User
    edited January 2011
    Not really, the 'right thing' is to not take sides.

    First, unless we're behind the popular revolt, it's not the done thing in diplomacy to acknowledge them as a legitimate replacement government until the new boss is firmly installed in the presidential palace, smoking the old boss's cigars.

    Second, even if we were behind it, American involvement in a democratic movement is the kiss of death as far as legitimacy is concerned. In most areas of the world, "american stooge" isn't a compliment. If the Americans popped up and started saying that these rebels were upstanding democrats that we could work with, they would lose some of their legitimacy at home.

    Third, in this case, it seems like this was an unorganized popular revolt. There really isn't any one leaderthat anyone can pick out of the crowd and support. Not until the dust settles will we be able to identify someone to talk to about opening up relations. Last I checked, there's still fighting between armed groups going on, and the current leaders are old cronies of the old president.

  • shrykeshryke Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Yeah, I thought throwing political and military weight behind parties in internal political matters was what people hated the US for.

  • dojangodojango Registered User
    edited January 2011
    shryke wrote: »
    Yeah, I thought throwing political and military weight behind parties in internal political matters was what people hated the US for.

    sheesh, you overthrow a couple of democratically elected presidents and all of a sudden nobody trusts you for decades. I mean, we haven't done that since, I dunno, whenever Aristide was overthrown the second time.

  • BastableBastable Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    dojango wrote: »
    Not really, the 'right thing' is to not take sides.

    First, unless we're behind the popular revolt, it's not the done thing in diplomacy to acknowledge them as a legitimate replacement government until the new boss is firmly installed in the presidential palace, smoking the old boss's cigars.

    Second, even if we were behind it, American involvement in a democratic movement is the kiss of death as far as legitimacy is concerned. In most areas of the world, "american stooge" isn't a compliment. If the Americans popped up and started saying that these rebels were upstanding democrats that we could work with, they would lose some of their legitimacy at home.

    Third, in this case, it seems like this was an unorganized popular revolt. There really isn't any one leaderthat anyone can pick out of the crowd and support. Not until the dust settles will we be able to identify someone to talk to about opening up relations. Last I checked, there's still fighting between armed groups going on, and the current leaders are old cronies of the old president.

    You should perhaps read the artical where they contrast the visible and verbal support of the recent anti government riots in Iran versus the no show for Tunisia. The argument being that the US (and the EU) only dislike, nasty corrupt and brutal dictatorships if they're not pro US/EU nasty, corrupt brutal dictatorships.

    Being diplomatic it seems only comes in when it's one of our thugs doing shitty things to their citizens. Also remember that the confluence of events leading to this included wikileaks of US diplomatic cables describing in detail the nasty brutish and corrupt nature of Ben Ali's government. That the US's own diplomatics services highlighted and reported on the nature of Tunisia's government and Hilary Clinton is busy making false noises about democracy about other dictators in doha are the building blocks of the argument of USA+ Democracy= Hypocritical.

    The argument of US should support no one because support means a loss of face in the east is utterly asinine as the US issue of perception is that it currently supports brutal corrupt dictatorships. this is true in currently in Iraq, Afghanistan and South Vietnam, never mind the gulf states, Saudi, Egypt ect.

    Philippe about the tactical deployment of german Kradschützen during the battle of Kursk:
    "I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."

  • BastableBastable Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    shryke wrote: »
    Yeah, I thought throwing political and military weight behind parties in internal political matters was what people hated the US for.

    Piffle as this argument only makes sense if the US and the EU were not currently busy supporting corrupt Dictators aka they are already interfering in internal political matters. . .

    Philippe about the tactical deployment of german Kradschützen during the battle of Kursk:
    "I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."

  • [Tycho?][Tycho?] Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    A BBC article suggesting Egypt doesn't appear to be following suit, despite having many similar problems:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12202937

    ragesig.jpg

  • dojangodojango Registered User
    edited January 2011
    Bastable wrote: »
    dojango wrote: »
    Not really, the 'right thing' is to not take sides.

    First, unless we're behind the popular revolt, it's not the done thing in diplomacy to acknowledge them as a legitimate replacement government until the new boss is firmly installed in the presidential palace, smoking the old boss's cigars.

    Second, even if we were behind it, American involvement in a democratic movement is the kiss of death as far as legitimacy is concerned. In most areas of the world, "american stooge" isn't a compliment. If the Americans popped up and started saying that these rebels were upstanding democrats that we could work with, they would lose some of their legitimacy at home.

    Third, in this case, it seems like this was an unorganized popular revolt. There really isn't any one leaderthat anyone can pick out of the crowd and support. Not until the dust settles will we be able to identify someone to talk to about opening up relations. Last I checked, there's still fighting between armed groups going on, and the current leaders are old cronies of the old president.

    The argument of US should support no one because support means a loss of face in the east is utterly asinine as the US issue of perception is that it currently supports brutal corrupt dictatorships. this is true in currently in Iraq, Afghanistan and South Vietnam, never mind the gulf states, Saudi, Egypt ect.

    Certainly, I agree with you that supporting bad dictators has bad consequences in the long-term. But that doesn't mean we should always get involved in popular revolts inside countries. In Iran, getting involved with their popular revolt was a mistake. And getting involved in whatever the heck happened in Venuzuela a decade ago. Even the merest whiff of US support of the Iranian protesters would be counter-productive, the US foreign service tried very hard to pretend like it didn't care what was happening. Because of the whole 1953 thing.

  • TheOrangeTheOrange Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    I agree, even none US encouraged revolts are being squashed by the all too inflammatory "this revolt is caused by outside Zionic interests".

  • BastableBastable Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    TheOrange wrote: »
    I agree, even none US encouraged revolts are being squashed by the all too inflammatory "this revolt is caused by outside Zionic interests".
    cite please.

    Philippe about the tactical deployment of german Kradschützen during the battle of Kursk:
    "I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."

  • shrykeshryke Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Bastable wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Yeah, I thought throwing political and military weight behind parties in internal political matters was what people hated the US for.

    Piffle as this argument only makes sense if the US and the EU were not currently busy supporting corrupt Dictators aka they are already interfering in internal political matters. . .

    No, it makes sense BECAUSE of that. After all, my entire point is predicated on the US being hated for that very behavior.

  • shrykeshryke Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Bastable wrote: »
    You should perhaps read the artical where they contrast the visible and verbal support of the recent anti government riots in Iran versus the no show for Tunisia. The argument being that the US (and the EU) only dislike, nasty corrupt and brutal dictatorships if they're not pro US/EU nasty, corrupt brutal dictatorships.

    What visible and verbal support??

    The US stayed the fuck out of the Iran situation precisely because they didn't want to be seen as meddling like you are suggesting.

  • BastableBastable Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    shryke wrote: »
    Bastable wrote: »
    You should perhaps read the artical where they contrast the visible and verbal support of the recent anti government riots in Iran versus the no show for Tunisia. The argument being that the US (and the EU) only dislike, nasty corrupt and brutal dictatorships if they're not pro US/EU nasty, corrupt brutal dictatorships.

    What visible and verbal support??

    The US stayed the fuck out of the Iran situation precisely because they didn't want to be seen as meddling like you are suggesting.

    You mean besides funding initially ok'd under the Bush government in 2007 ear marked to destabilize Iran?
    or Hilary Clinton in her interview with CNN on the green revolution mentioning a state department employee asking and succeeding at keeping twitter operational during Iran's daylight hours to enable anti government protests?( twitter being the comma choice for protest organisation). All the while stating they wanted to be really careful in not standing in front of the green revolution but supporting it in various ways?

    Not even hints of such activity for Tunisia.

    Philippe about the tactical deployment of german Kradschützen during the battle of Kursk:
    "I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."

  • BastableBastable Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    shryke wrote: »
    Bastable wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Yeah, I thought throwing political and military weight behind parties in internal political matters was what people hated the US for.

    Piffle as this argument only makes sense if the US and the EU were not currently busy supporting corrupt Dictators aka they are already interfering in internal political matters. . .

    No, it makes sense BECAUSE of that. After all, my entire point is predicated on the US being hated for that very behavior.

    Ok so your argument is that the US in investing money and political capital in dictatorships friendly to US and EU political and economic interests at the expense of their own people. Should not back a peoples revolution as it would be seen as interfering and make the US hated.

    ............ Did you miss the bit where The US has been aiding corrupt dictatorships which has resulted in their poor relations with the regions common people. So to be seen as the good guy now the US should not support popular uprising of pols against their tyrants because that would make Americans be seen as the great white Satan. Great white Satan to whom: corrupt Arab dictatorships? To downtrodden, killed unemployed poverty riddled citizens?

    Philippe about the tactical deployment of german Kradschützen during the battle of Kursk:
    "I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."

  • Alfred J. KwakAlfred J. Kwak Registered User
    edited January 2011
    I was always under the impression that Tunesia was the one Arabic country that "got it", being a highly popular tourist destination (I even booked a trip 2 years ago but had to chancel last minute), and you generally never heard anything bad about the country. Guess the marketing must have done a pretty damn impressive job to cover up the real situation there.

  • DarkCrawlerDarkCrawler Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    I was always under the impression that Tunesia was the one Arabic country that "got it", being a highly popular tourist destination (I even booked a trip 2 years ago but had to chancel last minute), and you generally never heard anything bad about the country. Guess the marketing must have done a pretty damn impressive job to cover up the real situation there.

    I'm pretty certain I have heard that no Arabic country imprisoned as many journalists as Tunisia.

  • dojangodojango Registered User
    edited January 2011
    I was always under the impression that Tunesia was the one Arabic country that "got it", being a highly popular tourist destination (I even booked a trip 2 years ago but had to chancel last minute), and you generally never heard anything bad about the country. Guess the marketing must have done a pretty damn impressive job to cover up the real situation there.

    Tunisia was stable in the same way that many popular tourist destinations are stable. The country may be undergoing repression, but you wouldn't know that from the tourist beaches and major sites of interest.

  • flamebroiledchickenflamebroiledchicken Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    dojango wrote: »
    I was always under the impression that Tunesia was the one Arabic country that "got it", being a highly popular tourist destination (I even booked a trip 2 years ago but had to chancel last minute), and you generally never heard anything bad about the country. Guess the marketing must have done a pretty damn impressive job to cover up the real situation there.

    Tunisia was stable in the same way that many popular tourist destinations are stable. The country may be undergoing repression, but you wouldn't know that from the tourist beaches and major sites of interest.

    Seriously, a buddy of mine recently went on Birthright to Israel, and the guide tried to tell his group that Gaza has fabulous beaches and 5-star hotels and no poverty. O_o

  • KalkinoKalkino Buttons Londres Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Well it certainly seemed to have a stable position as a medium income country, with a huge state sector, dependent on foreign aid. Sure, it isn't say Burma, but then it isn't a member of the OECD either

    Freedom for the Northern Isles!
  • shrykeshryke Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Bastable wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Bastable wrote: »
    You should perhaps read the artical where they contrast the visible and verbal support of the recent anti government riots in Iran versus the no show for Tunisia. The argument being that the US (and the EU) only dislike, nasty corrupt and brutal dictatorships if they're not pro US/EU nasty, corrupt brutal dictatorships.

    What visible and verbal support??

    The US stayed the fuck out of the Iran situation precisely because they didn't want to be seen as meddling like you are suggesting.

    You mean besides funding initially ok'd under the Bush government in 2007 ear marked to destabilize Iran?
    or Hilary Clinton in her interview with CNN on the green revolution mentioning a state department employee asking and succeeding at keeping twitter operational during Iran's daylight hours to enable anti government protests?( twitter being the comma choice for protest organisation). All the while stating they wanted to be really careful in not standing in front of the green revolution but supporting it in various ways?

    Not even hints of such activity for Tunisia.

    So the best you can come up with is almost nothing. Which is my point. The US made the right move and stayed the fuck out of the entire Iran situation beyond some vague "I hope the will of the people is enacted" sort of bland statements. US involvement would only make the situation worse, especially in that region.

    Bastable wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Bastable wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Yeah, I thought throwing political and military weight behind parties in internal political matters was what people hated the US for.

    Piffle as this argument only makes sense if the US and the EU were not currently busy supporting corrupt Dictators aka they are already interfering in internal political matters. . .

    No, it makes sense BECAUSE of that. After all, my entire point is predicated on the US being hated for that very behavior.

    Ok so your argument is that the US in investing money and political capital in dictatorships friendly to US and EU political and economic interests at the expense of their own people. Should not back a peoples revolution as it would be seen as interfering and make the US hated.

    ............ Did you miss the bit where The US has been aiding corrupt dictatorships which has resulted in their poor relations with the regions common people. So to be seen as the good guy now the US should not support popular uprising of pols against their tyrants because that would make Americans be seen as the great white Satan. Great white Satan to whom: corrupt Arab dictatorships? To downtrodden, killed unemployed poverty riddled citizens?

    It could deligitimize the uprising in the eyes of the people or other nations. Cause really, especially in that region, being seen as a US puppet is not a good thing. And that's assuming they even want US meddling. Or that the US should meddle.


    Ultimately, no matter how you try and talk around it, you can't avoid the hypocrisy in decrying Western meddling in other nations affairs and then turning around and trying to shame those very same powers for not meddling in this other exactly similar situation.

    How many uprisings and revolutions is the US supposed to be supporting here? Who's making these calls?

  • [Tycho?][Tycho?] Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    I swear you two are actually agreeing without realizing it.

    ragesig.jpg

  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    I swear you two are actually agreeing without realizing it.

    This is half the posts in D&D. I've done it too. :(

  • ElkiElki hegemon globalSuper Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2011
    Kalkino wrote: »
    Elki wrote: »
    Kalkino wrote: »
    Elki wrote: »
    Kalkino wrote: »
    Sure, but I suspect the US would be willing to stand behind the Egyptian leadership for quite some time, considering their view on likely replacement regimes.

    I don't think anyone who grew up in my generation, or... really anyone, is waiting for US support, expecting US support, or even wants US support. The US relationship with Arab dictators has been, for a while, just another talking point (damning to the governments) to mention, not really something actively lamented.

    I guess I probably should have picked up on this already, but does the above mean you are / were North African Arab?

    Born in Sudan, then moved around between Sudan, Libya, and Egypt.

    Ahh, well you certainly must have a much better understanding than the rest of us of the situation and how it is unfolding. Have you been reading the Tunisian social media updates or the Arab language media?

    What are your thoughts on the ability of the PM/someone else from the old regime patching together some sort of stable Tunisian government?

    Haven't really looked around much beyond what I what I see on Al Jazeera and conversations with people. I have smatterings of random thoughts.

    I don't know anyone, in real life, who's unhappy about this. I am, to say the least, pleased. It has been completely ignored outside the middle east. It is (and I don't mean to appropriate it from Tunisians) thoroughly Arabic; the fact that the first government to fall was a US/UE friendly dictatorship makes that much sweeter for us who gave up on those two, and put all hope on something domestic. And sometimes, even I forget how well economic socialism plays in the middle east, probably because I've been here too long; almost very opposition person that's been interviewed on TV repeated the same thing: "[X]% of the wealth is owned by [Y]% of the population." The numbers change slightly, but you get the idea. And it goes unchallenged by every commentator, because it's not really the sort of statement people would have objections to.

    Al Jazeera is enjoying a bit of harmless nationalist fun by constantly reporting that Qatar was the first Arab country to congratulate the Tunisian people on their revolution, and that Bin Ali is currently in Saudi Arabia.

    It's too early for me, or anyone, to say how this shakes out in Tunisia, let alone the rest of the region, but I've always felt it's something that just had to happen. Which is weird, considering that nothing like this happened during my life time, but it feels something like an inevitability; a long one, but I'm a patient man. What's sort of catching on, in what I hope is a brief jump of isolated, is suicide by self-immolation. It happened in Egypt, it happened in Algeria (in 4 different incidents), and I hope doesn't happen anywhere else.

    Oppositions figures are being arrested in neighboring countries for talking about doing things 'Tunisian style'.

    And I seem to have timed my trip to Egypt pretty well. A few months for this to simmer, and I'll be in for much coffee shop chatter. And more? Who knows.

    Al-Arabiya continues to be run by a bunch of Saudi royal dicks; playing up the looting as if it's the only thing that happened there this month.

    Priceless: Qadafi goes to air to express his disappointment in Tunisians. You don't have to understand Arabic to appreciate his body language and speaking mannerisms. You'll probably pick up on this, but the speech is completely unrehearsed

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xsdBoEIyZk

  • ElkiElki hegemon globalSuper Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2011
    I was always under the impression that Tunesia was the one Arabic country that "got it", being a highly popular tourist destination (I even booked a trip 2 years ago but had to chancel last minute), and you generally never heard anything bad about the country. Guess the marketing must have done a pretty damn impressive job to cover up the real situation there.

    You're not the only one. Tunis had a great reputation in the West, but in the middle east (and especially for liberals) its government is notorious. I always viewed Ben Ali's dictatorship as one of the worst in the region, behind Sudan, and up there with Egypt and Syria.

    They regime was pretty good at playing the game: keep power > spout vague platitudes about liberalizations (change is coming! reforms!) > western media picks it up > Western states like West-Friendly > echo chamber > hey, Tunisia's pretty cool, right? > keep the torture going.

    The muted response in the West to it is definitely a symptom of that. Bin Ali was not an Enemy, his fall serves the ideological interest of exactly nobody, and there was no build of questions like "what's up with this totalitarian police state you're running?"

    Arab governments know how to play the game. Yesterday Algeria sentenced a outspoken journalist to a long jail sentence. You know what charges they brought him under? Terrorisms and connections to Al Qaeda. Clever, yes? They know how people read news from the middle east: "Is it something Muslim? Is Islamism involved? Voting? How many women will they stone on their way to the polls." The Tunisian government played it as well as it could be played.

  • adytumadytum Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    I worry about what an open democracy in Egypt (or Morocco, etc.) would turn into, or how long it would last.

    etxvv5.jpg
  • DarkCrawlerDarkCrawler Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    adytum wrote: »
    I worry about what an open democracy in Egypt (or Morocco, etc.) would turn into, or how long it would last.

    In Egypt? Muslim Brotherhood would gain power, most likely. Kind of like Hezbollah in Lebanon, I'd say, without the whole forty thousand rockets aimed at Haifa thing. Wouldn't really matter though, because Gaza border would be wide open. I don't think Egypt led by Muslim Brotherhood would necessarily be a bad thing, especially compared to the current situation. They seem to understand the concept of democracy pretty well, have good track record with nonviolence (on Middle East level at the least) and aside say, from Israel I would describe most of their positions as fairly moderate...again when compared to other similar movements in the region. I mean they are still fundamentalist religious Muslims.

    For the rest...some are moving towards democracy at least seemingly (Morocco, Algeria, Jordan) while I couldn't even begin to fathom how say, Syria could ever become democratic.

  • adytumadytum Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Well, being moderate compared to radical extremists doesn't necessarily mean much, and it's not clear if or how the Muslim Brotherhood is involved in violence in Egypt.

    The Middle East isn't my area of interest or expertise, and what I do know is generally anecdotal or economic, not necessarily political.

    I'll try and read up on it a bit more in the coming months; I have an enormous stack of documents to go through.

    etxvv5.jpg
  • [Tycho?][Tycho?] Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    adytum wrote: »
    I worry about what an open democracy in Egypt (or Morocco, etc.) would turn into, or how long it would last.

    In Egypt? Muslim Brotherhood would gain power, most likely. Kind of like Hezbollah in Lebanon, I'd say, without the whole forty thousand rockets aimed at Haifa thing. Wouldn't really matter though, because Gaza border would be wide open. I don't think Egypt led by Muslim Brotherhood would necessarily be a bad thing, especially compared to the current situation. They seem to understand the concept of democracy pretty well, have good track record with nonviolence (on Middle East level at the least) and aside say, from Israel I would describe most of their positions as fairly moderate...again when compared to other similar movements in the region. I mean they are still fundamentalist religious Muslims.

    I wonder if the Brotherhood really would take power. It does seem the most likely option. But they've tried and failed so many times. I can't recal anything specifically, but I think I've read several things in the past few years about members of the Brotherhood becoming a bit disillusioned with the whole thing, and how support is waning a bit due to an apparent lack of direction. If Egypt also experiences these Tunisian sort of riots, I don't think its out of the question for some other group to get big if they're able to mobalize a lot of people and get the word out on the streets. The Brotherhood strikes me as being the haven of the old guard, and all the young people may be inclined to flock to something more exciting, radical and new. This would probably be a more militant sort of group though, along with being super religious. Hopefully not. I agree that the Brotherhood gaining power wouldn't be the worst for Egpyt. It would be a hell of a lot better than things are now, except the US and Israel would suddenly become their sworn enemies.

    ragesig.jpg

  • dojangodojango Registered User
    edited January 2011
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    adytum wrote: »
    I worry about what an open democracy in Egypt (or Morocco, etc.) would turn into, or how long it would last.

    In Egypt? Muslim Brotherhood would gain power, most likely. Kind of like Hezbollah in Lebanon, I'd say, without the whole forty thousand rockets aimed at Haifa thing. Wouldn't really matter though, because Gaza border would be wide open. I don't think Egypt led by Muslim Brotherhood would necessarily be a bad thing, especially compared to the current situation. They seem to understand the concept of democracy pretty well, have good track record with nonviolence (on Middle East level at the least) and aside say, from Israel I would describe most of their positions as fairly moderate...again when compared to other similar movements in the region. I mean they are still fundamentalist religious Muslims.

    I wonder if the Brotherhood really would take power. It does seem the most likely option. But they've tried and failed so many times. I can't recal anything specifically, but I think I've read several things in the past few years about members of the Brotherhood becoming a bit disillusioned with the whole thing, and how support is waning a bit due to an apparent lack of direction. If Egypt also experiences these Tunisian sort of riots, I don't think its out of the question for some other group to get big if they're able to mobalize a lot of people and get the word out on the streets. The Brotherhood strikes me as being the haven of the old guard, and all the young people may be inclined to flock to something more exciting, radical and new. This would probably be a more militant sort of group though, along with being super religious. Hopefully not. I agree that the Brotherhood gaining power wouldn't be the worst for Egpyt. It would be a hell of a lot better than things are now, except the US and Israel would suddenly become their sworn enemies.

    As long as they don't touch the suez canal, they can have any form of government they want. Although I suppose it would be kind of dickish if they decided to tear down their pagan monuments.

  • adytumadytum Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    More protests in Tunisia today, this time over the inclusion of members of the outgoing dictator's political party in the new interim government. Non-violent this time.

    That's all I gleaned from NPR this afternoon.

    etxvv5.jpg
  • DarkCrawlerDarkCrawler Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    dojango wrote: »
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    adytum wrote: »
    I worry about what an open democracy in Egypt (or Morocco, etc.) would turn into, or how long it would last.

    In Egypt? Muslim Brotherhood would gain power, most likely. Kind of like Hezbollah in Lebanon, I'd say, without the whole forty thousand rockets aimed at Haifa thing. Wouldn't really matter though, because Gaza border would be wide open. I don't think Egypt led by Muslim Brotherhood would necessarily be a bad thing, especially compared to the current situation. They seem to understand the concept of democracy pretty well, have good track record with nonviolence (on Middle East level at the least) and aside say, from Israel I would describe most of their positions as fairly moderate...again when compared to other similar movements in the region. I mean they are still fundamentalist religious Muslims.

    I wonder if the Brotherhood really would take power. It does seem the most likely option. But they've tried and failed so many times. I can't recal anything specifically, but I think I've read several things in the past few years about members of the Brotherhood becoming a bit disillusioned with the whole thing, and how support is waning a bit due to an apparent lack of direction. If Egypt also experiences these Tunisian sort of riots, I don't think its out of the question for some other group to get big if they're able to mobalize a lot of people and get the word out on the streets. The Brotherhood strikes me as being the haven of the old guard, and all the young people may be inclined to flock to something more exciting, radical and new. This would probably be a more militant sort of group though, along with being super religious. Hopefully not. I agree that the Brotherhood gaining power wouldn't be the worst for Egpyt. It would be a hell of a lot better than things are now, except the US and Israel would suddenly become their sworn enemies.

    As long as they don't touch the suez canal, they can have any form of government they want. Although I suppose it would be kind of dickish if they decided to tear down their pagan monuments.

    Egypt is so damn proud of it's history that they would be drawn and quartered within half an hour if they even tried to touch the Pyramids and the Sphinxes and whatever ala Taleban. And that's only if the tourism industry has not lynched them first.

  • FencingsaxFencingsax Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    dojango wrote: »
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    adytum wrote: »
    I worry about what an open democracy in Egypt (or Morocco, etc.) would turn into, or how long it would last.

    In Egypt? Muslim Brotherhood would gain power, most likely. Kind of like Hezbollah in Lebanon, I'd say, without the whole forty thousand rockets aimed at Haifa thing. Wouldn't really matter though, because Gaza border would be wide open. I don't think Egypt led by Muslim Brotherhood would necessarily be a bad thing, especially compared to the current situation. They seem to understand the concept of democracy pretty well, have good track record with nonviolence (on Middle East level at the least) and aside say, from Israel I would describe most of their positions as fairly moderate...again when compared to other similar movements in the region. I mean they are still fundamentalist religious Muslims.

    I wonder if the Brotherhood really would take power. It does seem the most likely option. But they've tried and failed so many times. I can't recal anything specifically, but I think I've read several things in the past few years about members of the Brotherhood becoming a bit disillusioned with the whole thing, and how support is waning a bit due to an apparent lack of direction. If Egypt also experiences these Tunisian sort of riots, I don't think its out of the question for some other group to get big if they're able to mobalize a lot of people and get the word out on the streets. The Brotherhood strikes me as being the haven of the old guard, and all the young people may be inclined to flock to something more exciting, radical and new. This would probably be a more militant sort of group though, along with being super religious. Hopefully not. I agree that the Brotherhood gaining power wouldn't be the worst for Egpyt. It would be a hell of a lot better than things are now, except the US and Israel would suddenly become their sworn enemies.

    As long as they don't touch the suez canal, they can have any form of government they want. Although I suppose it would be kind of dickish if they decided to tear down their pagan monuments.

    Egypt is so damn proud of it's history that they would be drawn and quartered within half an hour if they even tried to touch the Pyramids and the Sphinxes and whatever ala Taleban. And that's only if the tourism industry has not lynched them first.

    Yeah, Egypt would go to war if anyone touched what is basically the source of their national pride.

    Disregarding the major source of revenue, of course.

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
  • BastableBastable Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    adytum wrote: »
    I worry about what an open democracy in Egypt (or Morocco, etc.) would turn into, or how long it would last.

    In Egypt? Muslim Brotherhood would gain power, most likely. Kind of like Hezbollah in Lebanon, I'd say, without the whole forty thousand rockets aimed at Haifa thing. Wouldn't really matter though, because Gaza border would be wide open. I don't think Egypt led by Muslim Brotherhood would necessarily be a bad thing, especially compared to the current situation. They seem to understand the concept of democracy pretty well, have good track record with nonviolence (on Middle East level at the least) and aside say, from Israel I would describe most of their positions as fairly moderate...again when compared to other similar movements in the region. I mean they are still fundamentalist religious Muslims.

    I wonder if the Brotherhood really would take power. It does seem the most likely option. But they've tried and failed so many times. I can't recal anything specifically, but I think I've read several things in the past few years about members of the Brotherhood becoming a bit disillusioned with the whole thing, and how support is waning a bit due to an apparent lack of direction. If Egypt also experiences these Tunisian sort of riots, I don't think its out of the question for some other group to get big if they're able to mobalize a lot of people and get the word out on the streets. The Brotherhood strikes me as being the haven of the old guard, and all the young people may be inclined to flock to something more exciting, radical and new. This would probably be a more militant sort of group though, along with being super religious. Hopefully not. I agree that the Brotherhood gaining power wouldn't be the worst for Egpyt. It would be a hell of a lot better than things are now, except the US and Israel would suddenly become their sworn enemies.

    Wait is the brotherhood a liberal or fundamentalist organization, in so much are they like the taliban where until recently: Girls don't need education as they are chattel. Or are they Women can choose to divorce for any reason flavor of Islam?

    ok after checking the wiki page on the brotherhood it seems they're a bit of both and argue about what the correct interpretations are. Indicating it's like the Iranian Shia where you have a majority of fundamentalist thinking chaps and a smaller sect of "liberals."

    Philippe about the tactical deployment of german Kradschützen during the battle of Kursk:
    "I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."

  • [Tycho?][Tycho?] Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Bastable wrote: »
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    adytum wrote: »
    I worry about what an open democracy in Egypt (or Morocco, etc.) would turn into, or how long it would last.

    In Egypt? Muslim Brotherhood would gain power, most likely. Kind of like Hezbollah in Lebanon, I'd say, without the whole forty thousand rockets aimed at Haifa thing. Wouldn't really matter though, because Gaza border would be wide open. I don't think Egypt led by Muslim Brotherhood would necessarily be a bad thing, especially compared to the current situation. They seem to understand the concept of democracy pretty well, have good track record with nonviolence (on Middle East level at the least) and aside say, from Israel I would describe most of their positions as fairly moderate...again when compared to other similar movements in the region. I mean they are still fundamentalist religious Muslims.

    I wonder if the Brotherhood really would take power. It does seem the most likely option. But they've tried and failed so many times. I can't recal anything specifically, but I think I've read several things in the past few years about members of the Brotherhood becoming a bit disillusioned with the whole thing, and how support is waning a bit due to an apparent lack of direction. If Egypt also experiences these Tunisian sort of riots, I don't think its out of the question for some other group to get big if they're able to mobalize a lot of people and get the word out on the streets. The Brotherhood strikes me as being the haven of the old guard, and all the young people may be inclined to flock to something more exciting, radical and new. This would probably be a more militant sort of group though, along with being super religious. Hopefully not. I agree that the Brotherhood gaining power wouldn't be the worst for Egpyt. It would be a hell of a lot better than things are now, except the US and Israel would suddenly become their sworn enemies.

    Wait is the brotherhood a liberal or fundamentalist organization, in so much are they like the taliban where until recently: Girls don't need education as they are chattel. Or are they Women can choose to divorce for any reason flavor of Islam?

    ok after checking the wiki page on the brotherhood it seems they're a bit of both and argue about what the correct interpretations are. Indicating it's like the Iranian Shia where you have a majority of fundamentalist thinking chaps and a smaller sect of "liberals."

    I think asking if they're fundamentalists or not is a bit of a loaded question. They're a muslim political entity, I don't know but I'd bet they want to implement sharia law, make Islam the official state religion, etc. Instituting religious law is pretty much a definition of fundamentalism in the West, but almost every muslim political party advocates this. This is particularly tricky since most of the legal systems in place are extremely corrupt and built totally to service the elites of those countries. Building a legal system can look like liberalization if it is compared to the previous authoritarian/corrupt one, or fundamentalist when you remember the religious aspect.

    ragesig.jpg

  • ElkiElki hegemon globalSuper Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2011
    Islam is the official state religion in Egypt. In Tunisia as well.

  • adytumadytum Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    But women can walk around with their heads uncovered, and Christians (ostensibly) have equal rights. Alcohol is even widely available! Under a fundamental Islamic regime, it's likely that none of that would be true.

    This is talking about Egypt, I'm completely unfamiliar with Tunisia.

    edit- actually, I have no idea if a fundamental Islamic regime would treat Christians worse than the Egyptian government does now. Thoughts?

    etxvv5.jpg
2
Sign In or Register to comment.